Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, vs Assessee on 12 February, 2016
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण "के" यायपीठ मंब ु ई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM रोक आवेदन सं./SA No. 41/Mum/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 7724/Mum/2014) ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT-7(3)(2), Peninsula Spenta, 2nd Floor, Mumbai बनाम/ Mathuradas Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 013 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. AAACP 7200 N (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Nimesh Jain & Shri Fonil Bhatt Respondent by : Shri Pavan K. Beerla सनु वाई क तार ख / : 12.02.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क तार ख / : 12.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement आदे श / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
The brief facts leading to the present application are that the assessee's stay petition (SA No. 388/Mum/2004) in respect of its' captioned appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal on 02.1.2015, directing an early hearing thereof subject to the payment of Rs.20 lacs in two installments by specified dates. The same stood complied with, and the appeal heard on 15.6.2015, though was put for clarification and finally heard on 16.10.2015. The order by the tribunal is awaited, even as the Revenue presses for the balance outstanding demand of Rs.152.86 lacs (Annexure C to the petition). It is under these circumstances that the assessee has made the instant 2 SA No. 41/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT application, and the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) argues for an extension of stay.
2. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
The relevant facts are admitted and not disputed. Clearly, no stay was granted by the tribunal in the first instance, so that it is not a case of the assessee seeking an extension thereof. So, however, the assessee having complied with the condition/s imposed by the tribunal, at whose end the order is pending, we only consider the assessee's plea as reasonable. We, accordingly, in exercise of our inherent power, consider it proper to restrain the Revenue from collecting the outstanding demand till the disposal of the assessee's appeal by the tribunal. We decide accordingly.
3. In the result, the assessee's stay application is allowed on the aforesaid terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on February 12, 2016 Sd/- Sd/-
(Pawan Singh) (Sanjay Arora)
या यक सद य / Judicial Member लेखा सद य / Accountant Member
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 12.02.2016 व. न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Applicant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT - concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard File आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai